GAT_00:You know what would be nice? If someone explained why doing everything a company, which is a money making venture only, wants us to do will create jobs, when paying people only reduces profit.

Well you see, there's a market for labor. If you want someone to come work for you, you have to pay them *more* than their next best alternative, or else they won't work for you. This is how markets work.

The more people there are out there trying to start companies that will make money, the more jobs there will be, the more competition there will be to hire workers.

"Profit" is not a zero sum game. If I invest money to start a small business A and I can make $40/hr working on A, that's pretty good deal for me. You know what else is a good deal for me? Paying someone else $20/hr to run A while I go out and start up another business B that can make me $40/hr. I can still make some money back on my investment in A, while having time to start venture B. I can then pay someone $20/hr to run B while I go out and start C, etc. Note that in this situation, 'paying people' does not reduce my profit. It increases it. What would reduce my profit is if I couldn't find anyone to work at A or B and make money for me. One reason I might not be able to find people to do that work is if I pay them poorly or treat them like shiat. Therefore, I have a motivation to make sure my employees are adequately compensated and well treated.

This is how most jobs are actually created in the real world. Someone starts a business. If that business makes a profit the owner may decide to grow the business. As it grows, eventually the owner hires people to do the work she was doing so she can focus on either other businesses, or on more profitable parts of the original business.

That's basic microeconomics. You know, that course you may or may not have taken right after macro.

According to you Mark Zuckerberg is an idiot for hiring workers to do program Facebook for him, because it's eating into his profits. If he were smart, he'd fire all the employees and go back to writing all the code himself, because clearly that would maximize his profits, since we all know "paying people only reduces profit."

Except that it wouldn't. For reasons that should be obvious. But apparently it isn't obvious, because you can actually say the phrase "paying people only reduces profit" without any apparent sense of irony or understanding.

Wicked Chinchilla:Geothermal is also different from solar in that the Solar energy is bombarding us regardless of whether we harvest it. Until the sun dies out it will continue to pour radiation all over us in a cosmic golden shower. Solar power isn't so much "consuming" the sun (as geothermal would consume the Earths heat), as it is simply harvesting whats already getting thrown at us.

True, that is a better way to put it.

That said, damn, how awesome would it be if we could capture more than the tiny, tiny amount of sunlight that hit our planet ?(Compared to how much the sun outputs, I mean)

Fart_Machine:Geotpf: This is accurate, IMHO. Enivromentalists need to stop trying to get people to give up their standard of living. It's not going to work, and there will be a backlash.

Apart from the conservative strawman that Al Gore wants us all to live in mud huts and do subsistence farming when has this really been an issue?

Well, anything that increases the cost of energy (increasing gas taxes, for instance) has this effect. One example would be people who call for increased gas taxes to get people to drive less are calling for this sort of thing. Anything that is done to make superior goods (cars, versus the inferior good of public transit) more expensive is exactly this. There are also some local efforts to replace or remove roadways in favor of bike trails or public transit.

That's not saying I'm not in favor of subsidizing or encouraging public transit or more fuel efficient vehicles-just that making cars more expensive is not the way to go.

lexslamman:Actually, here in northern New York, the president's green jobs initiative has translated directly into more employment, more tax revenue and a healthier environment. Don't know where TownHall gets their bullshiat from, but they need to try harder.

Is northern New York where Obama's cronies retired after they took their golden parachutes from Solyndra? How wonderful for you, your community, and them.

Dancin_In_Anson:Aarontology: It's called the Ogallala Aquifer and it provides irrigation water to 30% of America's irrigated farmland. Now, you might think the risk of poisoning a third of America's farmland is worth it for the sake of a Canadian oil company's profits, but I would consider that foolish at best.

Yeah...um....about that.

So, what you're saying is that, since there's already a problem, it's OK to potentially make it much, much worse?

Felgraf:That said, damn, how awesome would it be if we could capture more than the tiny, tiny amount of sunlight that hit our planet ?(Compared to how much the sun outputs, I mean)

Although new energy solutions are exciting and would perhaps make things easier. They are completely unnecessary. All the renewable energy technology we need already exists. The only barriers are political.

Pipeline aside, what I've seen of this green jobs initiative does seem to be bunk, our local University has a green jobs program that is training veterans for this job and that, but the sad fact is that those jobs they train for simply don't exist yet. Once they finish the program they can't really do anything with the training they receive. They might as well be learning how to fix teleporters and warp drives because either way they are going to have to find a job doing something other than what they've been trained to do.

Felgraf:Wicked Chinchilla: Geothermal is also different from solar in that the Solar energy is bombarding us regardless of whether we harvest it. Until the sun dies out it will continue to pour radiation all over us in a cosmic golden shower. Solar power isn't so much "consuming" the sun (as geothermal would consume the Earths heat), as it is simply harvesting whats already getting thrown at us.

True, that is a better way to put it.

That said, damn, how awesome would it be if we could capture more than the tiny, tiny amount of sunlight that hit our planet ?(Compared to how much the sun outputs, I mean)

It would be awesome./insert pic of Sim City Microwave power Plant someone...

Felgraf:Geotpf: Give a real world example where this actually happened. You won't be able to, because, in the real world, such a thing almost never happens. The amount of money you have to spend to drive the competitor out of business (by lowering the price of your products) is almost always greater than the amount of money you would gain by driving them out of business.

Basically, your professor is right.

Perhaps not by lowering prices, but by utilizing vertical integration, yeah, one could lower prices enough that no one else can compete.

Rockefeller Standard Oil, for instance.

Or are you alleging that things such as predatory pricing are a myth, and that a company cannot be driven from a location due to a competitor artificially lowering prices on some of its goods?

That's different than the example given that I said doesn't exist.

This scenario basically never happens:

1. Big company A suddenly has a new competitor, Small company B.2. Big company A lowers prices so much they take a big loss on every item sold until Small company B goes out of business either trying to match the prices or not getting any business.3. Big company A then raises prices back up.

Geotpf:One example would be people who call for increased gas taxes to get people to drive less are calling for this sort of thing.

Who the fark wants that? That's stupid. Environmentalists have been calling for higher gas mileage standards for decades, back when gas was cheap as fark. If you had listened to them, our demand for gas/oil would be way down and the prices would be way down. It's dickheads like you that prevented it from happening, driving up prices today.

Dancin_In_Anson:Aarontology: It's called the Ogallala Aquifer and it provides irrigation water to 30% of America's irrigated farmland. Now, you might think the risk of poisoning a third of America's farmland is worth it for the sake of a Canadian oil company's profits, but I would consider that foolish at best.

Geotpf:1. Big company A suddenly has a new competitor, Small company B.2. Big company A lowers prices so much they take a big loss on every item sold until Small company B goes out of business either trying to match the prices or not getting any business.3. Big company A then raises prices back up.

Pretty much every industrialized first world nation is investing in new, clean, green, tech and it's not just about jobs.

It's about looking forward and realizing that it's not an option but a necessity.

A lot of the anti-green job spew we read in the local rags is copy written directly by think tanks supported by the oil, coal and gas lobbies and then presented to the public through their meat puppets in the GOP and then read verbatim by a talking haircut on one of the GOP's media propaganda arms as it were news.

Once you realize all that, drek like that found in this TH link becomes easy to dismiss for what it is.

Geotpf:Felgraf: Geotpf: Give a real world example where this actually happened. You won't be able to, because, in the real world, such a thing almost never happens. The amount of money you have to spend to drive the competitor out of business (by lowering the price of your products) is almost always greater than the amount of money you would gain by driving them out of business.

Basically, your professor is right.

Perhaps not by lowering prices, but by utilizing vertical integration, yeah, one could lower prices enough that no one else can compete.

Rockefeller Standard Oil, for instance.

Or are you alleging that things such as predatory pricing are a myth, and that a company cannot be driven from a location due to a competitor artificially lowering prices on some of its goods?

That's different than the example given that I said doesn't exist.

This scenario basically never happens:

1. Big company A suddenly has a new competitor, Small company B.2. Big company A lowers prices so much they take a big loss on every item sold until Small company B goes out of business either trying to match the prices or not getting any business.3. Big company A then raises prices back up.

it happens fairly regularly, typically when an integrated company competes with a pure-play competitor. see, e.g. the retail pharmacy landscape when walmart and cvs enter a market. they lower prices to at or just below cost (doesn't matter to them, they are driving foot traffic to their other products) and drive out pure-play pharmacies, then once competition is sufficiently driven out they raise it back to a modest profit margin. new entrants are discouraged by the chilling effect of the larger competitor and their lower operating costs.

Philip Francis Queeg:Geotpf: 1. Big company A suddenly has a new competitor, Small company B.2. Big company A lowers prices so much they take a big loss on every item sold until Small company B goes out of business either trying to match the prices or not getting any business.3. Big company A then raises prices back up.

If you are as concerned about low flow toilets and lightbulbs as I am, and love the lakes in "the parts" and trees that are the right height, then this is the most important election of your lifetime and YOU MUST VOTE REPUBLICAN.

Anyone sitting in front of their computer reading an article on the internet about how the government cannot create jobs or industries which will eventually be able to sustain themselves without government funding should just turn the farker off and smash their router/cable modem/whatever with a baseball bat.

skullkrusher:Philip Francis Queeg: Geotpf: 1. Big company A suddenly has a new competitor, Small company B.2. Big company A lowers prices so much they take a big loss on every item sold until Small company B goes out of business either trying to match the prices or not getting any business.3. Big company A then raises prices back up.

It happens pretty much every time Walmart opens up in a small town.

minus step 3

And minus the part in step #2 about Big company A taking a loss of every sale.

skullkrusher:Philip Francis Queeg: Geotpf: 1. Big company A suddenly has a new competitor, Small company B.2. Big company A lowers prices so much they take a big loss on every item sold until Small company B goes out of business either trying to match the prices or not getting any business.3. Big company A then raises prices back up.

Talondel:GAT_00: You know what would be nice? If someone explained why doing everything a company, which is a money making venture only, wants us to do will create jobs, when paying people only reduces profit.

Well you see, there's a market for labor. If you want someone to come work for you, you have to pay them *more* than their next best alternative, or else they won't work for you. This is how markets work.

The more people there are out there trying to start companies that will make money, the more jobs there will be, the more competition there will be to hire workers.

"Profit" is not a zero sum game. If I invest money to start a small business A and I can make $40/hr working on A, that's pretty good deal for me. You know what else is a good deal for me? Paying someone else $20/hr to run A while I go out and start up another business B that can make me $40/hr. I can still make some money back on my investment in A, while having time to start venture B. I can then pay someone $20/hr to run B while I go out and start C, etc. Note that in this situation, 'paying people' does not reduce my profit. It increases it. What would reduce my profit is if I couldn't find anyone to work at A or B and make money for me. One reason I might not be able to find people to do that work is if I pay them poorly or treat them like shiat. Therefore, I have a motivation to make sure my employees are adequately compensated and well treated.

This is how most jobs are actually created in the real world. Someone starts a business. If that business makes a profit the owner may decide to grow the business. As it grows, eventually the owner hires people to do the work she was doing so she can focus on either other businesses, or on more profitable parts of the original business.

That's basic microeconomics. You know, that course you may or may not have taken right after macro.

According to you Mark Zuckerberg is an idiot for hiring workers to do program Facebook for him, because i ...

I'm assuming that the /moron tag is for yourself.

No one is saying that a business owned shouldn't hire anyone. No one is saying that. What people are saying (and you yourself) is that a business will only hire someone if they can make money off them. They're not just hiring someone to feel good about providing jobs. If that person isn't going to add additional value to the company, they won't be hired.

Geotpf:Felgraf: Geotpf: Give a real world example where this actually happened. You won't be able to, because, in the real world, such a thing almost never happens. The amount of money you have to spend to drive the competitor out of business (by lowering the price of your products) is almost always greater than the amount of money you would gain by driving them out of business.

Basically, your professor is right.

Perhaps not by lowering prices, but by utilizing vertical integration, yeah, one could lower prices enough that no one else can compete.

Rockefeller Standard Oil, for instance.

Or are you alleging that things such as predatory pricing are a myth, and that a company cannot be driven from a location due to a competitor artificially lowering prices on some of its goods?

That's different than the example given that I said doesn't exist.

This scenario basically never happens:

1. Big company A suddenly has a new competitor, Small company B.2. Big company A lowers prices so much they take a big loss on every item sold until Small company B goes out of business either trying to match the prices or not getting any business.3. Big company A then raises prices back up.

...actually this does occur, fairly often. There's a MASSIVE amount of literature in industrial organization about entry/exit deterrence.

And about 85-90% of all Democrats and Republicans. I was shocked and appalled to discover that most people never had a basic Micro or Macro economics course in high school.

I had a basic micro/macro (I can't remember off the top of my head which) course in college, and it was COMPLETELY USELESS.

*Professor teaches about game theory and market equilibrium*"But Professor, what would happen if a player with a large cash reserve artificially lowered prices until they drove their competitor out of the market, then raised prices above the previous equilibrium value?""Oh, that could never happen, game theory says so.""What? But, I mean, it *has*-""No, that's an unstable equilibrium, so it can't stay that way."

And that's when I decided to stop paying much attention and do my physics homework instead.

Give a real world example where this actually happened. You won't be able to, because, in the real world, such a thing almost never happens. The amount of money you have to spend to drive the competitor out of business (by lowering the price of your products) is almost always greater than the amount of money you would gain by driving them out of business.

Basically, your professor is right.

We used to have 3 small hardware stores in my town. An ace, and two independents. Then a Lowes moved in and within 5 years we had exactly 1 place in town to buy a power tool, sandpaper, nails, or housepaint. Well, technically Walmart also sells power tools, but their selection is small and uniformly shiatty.

mrshowrules:Felgraf: That said, damn, how awesome would it be if we could capture more than the tiny, tiny amount of sunlight that hit our planet ?(Compared to how much the sun outputs, I mean)

Although new energy solutions are exciting and would perhaps make things easier. They are completely unnecessary. All the renewable energy technology we need already exists. The only barriers are political.

I totally disagree with you. Alternative energy is in its pretty early days still (like computing in the early 80s?). To suggest that no further value in investing in R&D in these areas is pretty silly if you ask me.... why do you think most other forward thinking countries (ie. China) are prioritizing investment in alternative energy research ahead of other investments?

The problem in the US is the conservative baby boomers in charge feel like they've got theirs, so they just want to stop investing in long term things like alternative energy, infrastructure, and education, so they can not pay taxes and slurp up the last of their savings (and the world's assets) before they kick the bucket. Its great that the most powerful and fortunate group of people in the history of the world are also one of the few who really don't give a damn about future generations.

obammy gave several hundred thousands of dollars to a battery company in west michigan for electrical vehicle use, but most of that money went to korea, but then, the koreans own the business, and the techs are korean, and they use korean equipment...

Citrate1007:Was hoping to see an article that was well writen and provided specific information detailing the argument against Obama's economic policies using relevant data. Hell, the article should write itself.

Instead I got A Farking TownHall Article Written by John Stossel

Thanks for nothing Subby.

Damn, I didn't even notice who wrote it. Stossel's the idiot who thinks the government shouldn't be allowed to print money - if the market has a demand for a non-barter economy, then private companies should step forward with their own currency. Apparently he never considers the fact that if you'd end up being paid in wal-bucks which couldn't be spent at competing grocery stores.

HeadLever:lennavan: My bad, I thought we were talking about environmentalists only.

In many ways, he is.

Ultimately depends upon how you define the term.

Yeah, you're right. Admitting global warming is real and we should do something about it doesn't really make you an environmentalist in my head. But you can certainly make a strong case it does. I don't actually care about the environment itself, I care about the repercussions back on me/my kids when the environment goes to shiat.

thomps:it happens fairly regularly, typically when an integrated company competes with a pure-play competitor. see, e.g. the retail pharmacy landscape when walmart and cvs enter a market. they lower prices to at or just below cost (doesn't matter to them, they are driving foot traffic to their other products) and drive out pure-play pharmacies, then once competition is sufficiently driven out they raise it back to a modest profit margin. new entrants are discouraged by the chilling effect of the larger competitor and their lower operating costs.

Do you have any sourcing on that assertion? I'm curious about what the real-world examples of that might be.

The problem with your specific example is that it doesn't work - you can argue that Walgreens went in and put all the single-product pharmacies out of business (which didn't really happen since the corner drug store business was about selling more than drugs). But where's the evidence that Walgreens then raised their prices?

And in fact, what happened in many areas of the country is that CVS later came in and took some of Walgreen's market share away. In the Midwest CVS and Walgreens are in a hugely competitive battle for market share, which benefits consumers because both sides are trying to outdo the other in a now-competitive market.

If your theory were correct, CVS shouldn't have been able to do that. Walgreens would be able to dominate the market and prevent new entrants - but that in fact did not happen.

Same with Wal-Mart - they don't raise their prices once they've established themselves in a new market. They keep their pricing consistent across the board. The only real way they can do that is because they've been ruthless in eliminating supply-chain inefficiencies. That not only benefits Wal-Mart, but the techniques they've pioneered have been adopted by other retailers as well.